China Needs A 'Game Changing' Renewable Energy Technology

Despite all the evident progress in China in fostering renewable energy, energy conservation and other sustainability initiatives, there still is a 60-70% chance that the smart phones or tablets we use were manufactured in China using electricity generated from a coal-fired power plant.

We have reported on the policies, international politics, industries, foreign trade and investment opportunities, triumphs and failures and other developments that have propelled China into the vanguard of renewable energy deployment worldwide. China watchers should not be surprised by the speed with which China has embraced renewable energy development; this impatient “making-up-for-lost-time” pattern has been repeated in countless industries throughout China since Deng Xiaoping first launched “Reform and Opening Up” in the late 1970s. To take wind power as an example, from a negligible base in 2007 (about 4 GW), China’s capacity to generate power from wind is now the world’s second largest (about 60 GW, though some isn’t grid connected). At the current pace of installations (about 15-20 GW/year) China likely will have more than 200 GW of installed wind capacity by 2020.

It is tempting to compare the alacrity with which the Chinese leadership has put in place public policy and capital to steer China’s economy onto a path of increasing sustainability, with the sluggishness of other nations in this regard. Ironically, the United States’ economy is much better positioned to implement the aggressive renewable energy policies that China has pursued over the past six years and would have shown very impressive results and even greater restraint in carbon dioxide emissions had similar policies been put in place.

Yet for all of the demonstrable progress, China seems to be running in place as it tries to achieve the goal of transforming its economy into one marked by innovation and sustainability. The stultifying photos of Beijing enveloped in a blanket of smog, which were broadcast worldwide last week, reminds us that for all the effort China has made to move to the forefront of renewable energy development, it continues to fall behind.

In 2011, China was responsible for 80 percent of the growth in global carbon emissions and according to the World Resources Institute, China and India combined will build 76% of the nearly 2000 coal-fired power plants now under development worldwide.

Since 2006, when the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion MT and China emitted 6.2 billion MT of carbon dioxide, China has displaced the United States as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the pace of that disparity has increased as China’s emissions have continued to grow rapidly, while U.S. emissions have leveled off. Since 2008, as carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. have remained relatively steady at approximately 5.5 billion MT/year, China’s emissions have increased precipitously, from 7 billion MT (in 2008), to 8.2 billion MT (in 2010) and further to 9.7 billion MT (in 2011).

So, this is the central conundrum that China (and the rest of the developing world) faces: can it “turn the ship around” as the ship steams ahead at full speed? While we have suggested that China “pause” to allow sustainability to catch up with the magnitude of the Chinese economy, it is unlikely that the exigencies of China’s inexorable economic ascent and the political and social context in which that is being accomplished would allow such a hiatus.

What China desperately needs now are new low-cost clean energy technologies that can be implemented quickly and on a scale that competes with coal-fired power plants (and the prospect of LNG imports from the U.S.). Because China’s transition from an imitative to an innovation economy has lagged, for the time being at least, we likely must rely on the rich pool of inventors in North America and the EU (including many Chinese who earned advanced degrees in the West and chose to stay) for those ‘game-changing’ energy generating technologies that will enable China and the rest of the developing world to grow both rapidly and sustainably. Fortunately, we have evidence that those inventions are on the horizon.

In the case of generating energy from wind, an extremely hopeful innovation has arrived by way of a small company based in Chaska, Minnesota (Sheer Wind, Inc.), one that may become the vehicle for rapid deployment of wind power in China on a scale that will allow renewable energy finally to become the dominant source of energy in the foreseeable future.

The INVELOX (Increased Velocity of Oxygen) technology developed by SheerWind can be used across the energy demand spectrum, from grid-connected utility scale production to small remote off-the-grid applications. SheerWind’s technology captures wind at cut-in speeds as low as 2-4 mph (so it can deployed close to where energy demand is located), and then accelerates it through an innovative application of the Venturi Effect (a patented process) to run turbines located at or below ground level (where maintenance is easier and cheaper).

It is now clear that even an energetic effort by China to deploy traditional sources of renewable energy will be insufficient for it to satisfy its growing energy needs without choking itself on pollution. Only by aggressively adopting more innovative renewable energy technologies will China be able to do its part in capping the alarming rise in carbon emissions. To provide China with abundant, affordable clean energy that can be scaled easily and adopted widely, is an imperative; that there now may be such solutions to China’s nagging energy and environmental challenges on the horizon, is cause for optimism.

27 Comments

It is a surprise that China has not created a hydrogen fuel system with a combination of solar and wind energy as the source of power to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in the largest pool of water in the world, and that is the salt water in the oceans. The supply of salt water is unlimited and could also be the source of fresh drinking water. DUH! All the combustile fuels have hydrogen as the source of the combustion.

"The most reliable source of renewable energy in the world is still the sun."

You and Anonymous should not be ruining your good names with ludicrously false statements.

Not only does the sun go out every night except in polar regions where it goes out for months, the dying sun itself will destroy Mother Earth 2 billion years before she runs out of fuel.

Romantic notions of a romantic fling with the hyper-expensive cad is very costly and foolish.

Fortunately for China, she is advancing a geothermal heating utility pioneered in Boise, Idaho, for municipal buildings and then later largely forgotten by America even more thoroughly than conventional geothermal. Distributed geothermal power from low temperature resources is the cheapest of all energy and is more reliable than coal or any other energy source.

http://tinyurl.com/bdxp5un

I assume you were both just joshing us.

Best, Terry

ANONYMOUS
February 2, 2013

T Bowring is spot on. The sun is by far the biggest renewable energy source. It is also powers the climate cycle (including wind), and through photosynthesis bio-energy and biofuels and fossil fuels.

The most reliable source of renewable energy in the world is still the sun. China and other Asian regions are all struggling with how they best manage energy renewable energy sources within their own borders. Australia with its huge inland solar insolation potential can through undersea and overland power transmission infrastructure supply direct power when the sun is on or solar Hydrogen from water to keep off peak power running through a combination of storage, fuel cells etc. I would imagine the political issues would be more difficult than the technical demands, but through discussion and demonstration plant something could be going within decades. To see what others are thinking go to www.grenatec.com or take a look at
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2/solar_pv.htm

Energy from coal. Electric power to the destruction of the environment and natural resources. We have collaborated on the development of new energy as the driving gas for the environment than this. Or do the developed countries and developing countries, the use of modern technology. We do not think that is the product and how to make our children know that. "Energy and the Environment. It is part of our world ".

ANONYMOUS
January 31, 2013

Energy from coal. Electric power to the destruction of the environment and natural resources. We have collaborated on the development of new energy as the driving gas for the environment than this. Or do the developed countries and developing countries, the use of modern technology. We do not think that is the product and how to make our children know that. "Energy and the Environment. It is part of our world ".

The Huazhong University of Science & Technology (HUST) recently announced that it will undertake a research project into the atmospheric vortex engine. This follows announcement that the Thiel Foundation will also fund a prototype.

The site http://www.vortexengineer.com outlines the concept.

The vortex engine will not only generate power, but also act to scrub the atmosphere local to the power plant.

Why do that when you could burn the biomass without the cost and loss in conversion?

What if you burned pounds of biomass instead of gallons of converted fuel?

One reason is the internal combustion engines in use but waste heat engines can be utilized and are today, mainly through the Organic rankine cycle engine. Waste heat engines are not utilized in transportation today but there is no reason they can't be considering Mark Twain's mummy-burning locomotives used a considerably older technology than the current engines. [Twain's account in Innocents Abroad of mummies "bought by the ton or the graveyard" to fuel the Trans-Egypt Railroad locomotives is denied by deniers as being factual but deniers are in the denial business and care nothing for evidence.]

Summerhill Biomass is a development-stage company that would use powdered biomass "as natural gas" for heating and generating electricity. Summerhill has even done proof of concept experiments at Syracuse University for use of biomass in internal combustion engines but I don't consider such likely practical.

Others do better in leaving biochar (or at least a similar byproduct) behind.

Terry, I have no idea what you mean?
Cool planet Biofuels processes 1 ton of biomass into 75 gallons of biofuel,(diesel, gasoline or Jetfuel), and 1/3 ton of Biochar, that's what I mean when I say Biochar is a by product of processing of biomass into biofuels.

Burning Biomass essentially waste all the carbon in that biomass just to make energy. 1 ton of biomass has about 1000 pounds of carbon in it, about 50% Carbon. Such Thermal conversion processes conserve about 600 pounds of that carbon, the elemental carbon in the cell walls of the plant cell structure. Recent studies have demonstrated that pyrolytic carbons share of total soil organic carbon is over 50%, biomass carbon is too valuable to burn. Using quantitative 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy measurements, concluding that both Terra Preta Soils and Midwest Dark soils contain 40% to 50%+ of their organic carbon (SOC) as pyrolytic carbon, that this pyrolytic carbon can account for all CEC

"China now has hundreds of acres under Biochar field trials, a biofuel technology platform byproduct"

Biochar is not a byproduct of biofuel conversion processes unless you consider unconverted disintegrated biomass a biofuel.

Burning disintegrated and dried waste biomass can be the cheapest and most environmentally sound of all energy sources with biochar a natural end product - and is probably the most hated by purported environmentalists.

China now has hundreds of acres under Biochar field trials, a biofuel technology platform byproduct that once in the soil has multiple benefits. For anyone interested in, or confused by, Biochar Soil Technologies, Please view my presentation and slides of this opening talk for the USBI Biochar conference in Sonoma California. This is the third US Biochar conference, after ISU 2010 and Colorado 2009. 'Carbon Conservation for Home, Health, Energy & Climate' http://2012.biochar.us.com/299/2012-us-biochar-conference-presentations Modern Thermal conversion of biomass burns only the hydrocarbons in that biomass, conserving the carbon for the soil. At the large farm or village scale modern pyrolysis reactors can relieve energy poverty, food insecurity and decreased dependency on chemical fertilizers. Please take a look at this YouTube video by the CEO of CoolPlanet Biofuels, guided by Google's Ethos and funding, along with GE, BP and Conoco, they are now building the reactors that convert 1 ton of biomass to 75 gallons of bio ? gasoline and 1/3 ton Biochar for soil carbon sequestration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o The tagline of the company 'The more you drive with our bio gasoline, the cleaner the atmosphere becomes' If it's good enough for Google, It's more than good enough to me. The CEOs have already taken the lead sponsorship for the University of Massachusetts 2013, fourth, USBI Biochar Conference, October 13-16, 2013, Please consider attending, the whole conference will be the first conference in history to be carbon negative Cheers, Erich Erich J. Knight Shenandoah Gardens 1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA. 22840 540-289-9750 Policy & Community Committee Chair, 2013 North American Biochar Symposium http://pvbiochar.org/2013-symposium/

"Western countries persistently, pervasively, and gloatingly, like to point fingers at China's monstrous carbon emissions - but they neglect to mention that leading western firms moved their toxic operations to China and South Asia"

True enough except Asia was not alone and my "Western country," the U.S., especially has no reason to point a finger at anyone. Even within the renewable energy field it has wildly pumped the least effective, solar and wind, while vigorously suppressing baseload renewable energy, even often favoring coal over biomass.

Western countries persistently, pervasively, and gloatingly, like to point fingers at China's monstrous carbon emissions - but they neglect to mention that leading western firms moved their toxic operations to China and South Asia to avoid the heavy operational penalties in their home countries, not to mention labor laws, etc ad infinitum. China will move at China's pace, dependent on it's socialist structure as opposed to maximization of profits, etc. For China to truly develop a market oriented 'game changer', movement must come from the innovative public sector, demonstrating profitability within mature business models. This will trigger the copycat avalanche and eventual saturation of the RE market in China at a blistering pace, through private sector participation, quality and sustainability issues notwithstanding. A simple look at the mobile phone, ipad clone, and PC manufacturing sectors should provide ample evidence of China's appetite for new markets. Selling RE power alone is insufficient - as in the mobile industry - we need to learn how to cook our projects to generate multiple streams of revenues, reaching across diverse market segments, as opposed to dependence on ethereal, unsustainable, and unreliable government subsidies. Entry into China's RE or other markets is no more challenging than other countries - just different rules with different names. The key is finance and pilots. Entrepreneurs need to bring finance, as Chinese tend to be risk adverse, and instantiate pilots to demonstrate your business and especially profit models. Then it's just a matter of choosing a launch (pilot) site with the proper chemistry. Trying to launch pilots in Beijing is suicidal for entrepreneurs.

"First anything that comes from Britain I will take with a grain of salt. They also said it is not needed due to existing plutonium stock piles."

I noticed that lovely thought. I suppose one could consider that it is not easy to dispose of those existing stock piles of plutonium as well as other radioactive wastes.

A half life of 300 years is still a long time though hardly comparable to 10,000 years.

Either way, comparison with current reactors or coal mines doesn't quite fill me with joy because thorium reactors aren't as bad.

"With this technology and existing growth in green technology we could be carbon neutral in 40."

What is mainly growing right now is greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

We could be carbon neutral far quicker than 40 years if we wished to be but we it might help if we learned where reverse is on the drive shaft. Technology that works best is least appreciated and often fought with a particular ferocity. The wind and solar crowd has even declared "baseload" an obscenity while they dream of things that never were and may never be.

Thank you for your comments.

I selected text to get a reaction for my information rather than make any kind of argument. At least I succeeded in that. :-)

First anything that comes from Britain I will take with a grain of salt. They also said it is not needed due to existing plutonium stock piles. They compare solid reactors and not a liquid metal florium where the plutonium is burned. They are two dramatically different technologies. It is written as a hit piece to keep the status quo.
233 is created and cycled back into the reactor and burned to continue the reaction. Second it is nowhere near the amount to radioactive waste of an existing reactor. The remaining waste has a 1/2 life of 300 years not 10,000. Most of the trasnuranics are burned in the process. A coal fired power plant spews 100 times more radioactive material than typical existing reactors. Fracking also releases radioactive gas Radon. Nothing is safe but you can damn well bet that the pollution release and the 18,000 deaths in the US from coal fired plants are real and acidification of the oceans is real.
You are missing the point that less than 1% of the existing uranium is burned in the current reactors and they produce orders of magnitude more waste that has a ½ life of 10,000 plus years. Huge amount of plutonium and transuranics are produced. Thorium is a continuous cycle that burns virtually all of the thorium the fuel. The thorium reactor works at over 400C and if cooled turns solid. It is much more difficult to process this stuff into any kind of weapon and would be easier to steal material from an existing nuclear waste facility. Also some of the thorium reactors can be designed to burn existing spent nuclear fuel in the process.
At the current rate we will be totally green in the next 100 plus years. With this technology and existing growth in green technology we could be carbon neutral in 40.
I was personally against nuclear energy for 30 years but this is a different beast altogether.

The greatest benefit of liquid floride thorium reactors (LFTRS) is it CANNOT melt down or explode.

The new magical elixir, thorium, may not be all it's - umm - cracked up to be for nuclear reactors. First Thorium is converted to U-233.

>4.5. Proliferation risk

The absence of plutonium is in the thorium fuel cycle is claimed to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, though Reference [1] questions whether is this is completely valid, given that there were a number of U-233 nuclear tests (the "Teapot tests") in the US in the 1950s. U-233 is in many respects very well suited for weapons use...<

Page 17 of document produced by clicking "Comparison of thorium and uranium fuel cycles" @
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thorium-and-uranium-fuel-cycles-comparison-by-the-national-nuclear-laboratory

Many of the supposed advantages of thorium may prove illusory. Even trace amounts of the rightfully dreaded plutonium are produced in the thorium fuel cycle despite what the report claims here.

"As the links in the article above show, and as every engineering student is taught in his first year (if not in secondary school), the Venturi effect is centuries old."

One need hardly be an engineering student to know science. Sometimes it seems imperative one not be. :-)

"It is about a pressure reduction with an increase in flow speed, and furthermore bears no direct relation to the Sheer Wind technology, which is about the concentration of kinetic energy, not about the accompanying the pressure reduction."

Thank you for elucidating your thinking but the second hardly obviates the first.

As the links in the article above show, and as every engineering student is taught in his first year (if not in secondary school), the Venturi effect is centuries old.

It is about a pressure reduction with an increase in flow speed, and furthermore bears no direct relation to the Sheer Wind technology, which is about the concentration of kinetic energy, not about the accompanying the pressure reduction.

Dear author, I tried to create interest in China in my RE technologies that cover: ***1) Unique energy saving technology called SLT which allows to reduce energy consumption in average by 25% by adding simple interface between energy producing and energy consumption devices. ***2) New design for kinetic energy utilization devices allowing 2.4 times increase in water and wind utilization efficiency. ***3) New vehicle power train requiring about 5 times less energy to drive. ***Still waiting for reply, maybe you can help. Those technologies are not popular in Canada somehow.

Add Your Comments

Lou Schwartz, a lawyer and China specialist who focuses his work on the energy and metals sectors in the People's Republic of China, is a frequent contributor to Renewable Energy World. Through China Strategies LLC, Lou, who is fluent in...